|
The editorials posted in this section are submitted
by Council members/officers and chosen by the Council secretariat;
however, the views expressed are not meant to represent those held
by the Council as a whole. The goal of the editorials is to provoke
intellectual debate among readers. If you have a response to an
editorial or a new editorial you would like to have considered for
publication on this site, please send it to the Council using the
Editorial and Comment Response
Form.
Title VI and the LCTLs: Is More
Help on the Way?
by Richard D. Brecht
Recently, a proposal has been advanced which would target significant
federal resources to the LCTLs. Specifically, it has been proposed
that legislation governing the support of National Foreign Language
Resource Centers (LRCs), funded under Title VI of the HEA, be revised
to mandate that these centers be focused on specific world areas.1
In practice this would mean, for example, that an LRC would focus
its efforts on providing expertise and resources for African languages,
while another might concentrate on South Asian languages. Given
the fact that these centers receive, on the average, approximately
$400,000 per year, such annual investments would represent a enormous
increase of resources available to these traditionally under funded
fields.
While the proposed change would not remove the current
research and service mandate of the LRCs, it would mean that a significant
additional criterion for selection would be the willingness and
ability of an institution to contribute directly to the resource
base of the language fields of a given world area. While this change
has been recommended by the administration and endorsed by the higher
education community as represented by the Coalition on International
Education at the American Council on Education, quite naturally
it is being resisted by the existing LRCs, who advance the following
arguments against such a change.
ARGUMENT: The LRCs should work to the benefit
of all languages, not especially for the LCTLs, and so the basic
research and generic training carried out by the current LRCs to
a large extent on the basis of Spanish, French, and ESL is appropriate,
particularly since the effects will ultimately benefit the LCTLs
as well.
RESPONSE: The original intent of Title VI
of the NDEA was to assist languages "not generally available
in the U.S., and so any addition of resources directed at the LCTLs
as a result of this recommendation is consonant with the original
and abiding focus on shoring up this nation's capacity in the LCTLs.
In addition, the fact that three of the twelve world areas specified
in the legislation are heavily oriented to the CTLs (North America
(French), Latin America (Spanish), and West Europe (French &
Spanish)) makes any argument concerning the neglect of the Commonly
Taught Languages (CTLs) moot.
ARGUMENT: The basic research being conducted
by the current LRCs is relevant to all languages and institutions
in the country, and again will ultimately benefit the LCTLs.
RESPONSE: Indeed, basic research is vital
to the health of all languages, including the LCTLs. The problem
is one of resources and priorities: many of the LCTLs currently
are in desperate need of basic materials and services, and there
is little chance that other funding sources for them will emerge.
By contrast, there exist other sources of support for basic research,
including the Research Program of Title VI. Also, individual faculty
members will continue to carry out basic research as part of the
normal responsibilities assigned by their institutions.
ARGUMENT: Many of the LCTL fields are too
weak in expertise to support the research and training normally
carried out at an LRC.
RESPONSE: Either this argument is correct
and demonstrates the need for a significant increase in resources
for these languages, or the argument is patently false.
The proposed change enjoys widespread support inside
and outside the language communities. Nevertheless, there is no
guarantee that Congress will agree to it unless the case is made
on its merits in an open and honest debate. Individuals and institutions
around the country, interested in dramatically strengthening the
LCTLs, should make the argument and enlist the support of colleagues
in the CTLs and in the area and international studies communities
on their behalf. Otherwise, there is the real possibility that the
current reauthorization of Title VI of the HEA will not provide
the much needed infusion of additional resources so badly needed
by the LCTLs in the United States.
Comments to the Current Editorial
Council members and others interested in the
field of Less Commonly Taught Languages are encouraged to submit comments
to the editorials and new editorials using the Response Form. Suitable
Editorials and Comments will be published in CouncilNet.
|
